The fight to restore family planning financing that was cut from the Texas budget in the last legislative session has taken a turn toward primary care. Republican state senators have proposed adding $100 million to a state-run primary care program specifically for women’s health services, an effort that would help avoid a political fight over subsidizing specialty family planning clinics.

“It’s a much better way to treat the women because they don’t just have family planning issues,” said Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, a family physician who has advocated for increasing primary care services for women.

Comment Policy

The Texas Tribune is pleased to provide the opportunity for you to share
your observations about this story. We encourage lively debate on the issues
of the day, but we ask that you refrain from using profanity or other
offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting
advertising, or wandering away from the topic at hand. To comment, you must
be a registered user of the Tribune, and your user name will be displayed.
Thanks for taking time to offer your thoughts.

avoiding the reality that women have abortions is part of why Texas is a failure in all healthcare, not just women's. there will still be thousands of unwanted pregnancies, but GOP legislators stick their heads in the sands of phony morality

The religious right fanatics, many of them are men, do not have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do about their personal life. Abortion is a medical procedure. If vasectomies and viagra can be medical expenses, then it is only fair for abortions to be recognized the same way.The religious right knows nothing about

The key to limiting abortion is comprehensive sex-ed in schools, affordable birth control, and healthcare for mother and baby. This state, along with the help of hypocrits like Matthew denies its citizens all these proven measures and then denies them the right to end the pregnancy.

Adele, Abortion is an Elective medical procedure. IF you do not want "men" not to have a right to tell you what to do about your personal life then stop asking the state to subsidize and pay for it. IF you want an abortion then pull up to big girl pants and pay for it yourself.

Secondly you speak about morality and then mention the bible, then it is clear that you are clueless about the bible because you would know that supporting abortion from a biblical standpoint is not moral.

Sorry Karen, I'm not religious at all and I'm pro-life. In my day, this was not a problem because for the most part single women kept their legs CLOSED. While we don't have accurate stats, there's no way we had the number of abortions pre-1973 as compared to today.

As for turning Texas Blue, the only way that will happen would be due to a serious lack of oxygen.

March 1, 2013 @ 2:38 p.m.

Christie Smith

@ Matthew:You are misinformed. The state does not and never has subsidized abortions. Ever. The money went solely to preventive medicine, mammograms, pap smears and yes, family planning services. The fact that Planned Parenthood provided some of these services is what apparently got everyone's panties in a twist. It DOES NOT HELP to have misinformation, such as you are spouting here, adding fuel to the fire.Also, Matthew, please be so kind as to cite the Bible verse that bans abortions - oh, and that says a fetus is viable. Last I heard the Bible says life happens at first breath.

@ Pickles:If single women kept their legs closed, who were all the men having sex with? Each other? You live in a fantasy past that never existed. The reason we didn't have as many abortions is because it was a dangerous, back alley procedure. However, there were women desperate to attempt it, and there will be again.

March 1, 2013 @ 5:27 p.m.

Samdavis

I think "religion" needs a better spokesperson than you Matthew. Your fawning support of Perry doesn't show much understanding of what "religion" is supposed to teach.

The first duty of a state is to protect the rights and lives of its citizens. Pro lifers murder born babies and we need to be protected from those murders. They hate women that abort and are willing to kill other members of society to protect their feuts/god. Women need to be protected from pro lifers that choose to save fetuses at the expense of the lives of women.

"IT is funny you talks about morality but yet defend and support abortion."

The funny thing is that you choose to show your face in society. You are a proved murderer and are attempting to establish a following with other murderers. Why not stop killing born babies to save fetuses and join me in saving born babies, children and adults?

Matthew Cowan said: “Adele, Abortion is an Elective medical procedure. IF you do not want "men" not to have a right to tell you what to do about your personal life then stop asking the state to subsidize and pay for it. IF you want an abortion then pull up to big girl pants and pay for it yourself.”

Your ideas are usually quite foolish and this is another example. Women have been paying taxes for hundreds of years and those taxes have been spent by largely male legislatures for male privilege. So women have already paid enough taxes to cover all the health care they want. You have no “financial” reason to deny abortion.

“Secondly you speak about morality and then mention the bible, then it is clear that you are clueless about the bible because you would know that supporting abortion from a biblical standpoint is not moral.”

The Bible strongly supports the pro choice viewpoint. First there is free will and the ability to pray to God for an answer. When a woman prays to God and he grants her wish for abortion, then the Biblical issue is settled and there can be no argument. Second, God set up the world in such a way that the only way a pro lifer can save a fetus is by murdering a born person. So if a person such as yourself, that claims to be pro life, attempts to save life by forcing birth, you can only do so by intentionally murdering a born baby, child or adult. http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com

Matthew Cowan, I am certain you think that the pro life movement is "saving" babies, but that is just a fantasy. Scientific law shows that there are more people dying than can be saved. In fact there are 1.8 deaths each second and 1.4 abortions each second. Therefore it is impossible to save all human life. We must therefore, as humans, choose whom to save, we may save the born babies, children and adults; or we may let them die and choose to save fetuses. If we spend 1 second saving fetuses, then in that second 1.8 born babies, children or adults will die. In sixty seconds, 108 babies will die. So if you make the choice to be pro life, you are not saving life, you are murdering born life to save fetuses. That is insane.

Matthew Cowan said: " Fact shows that approximately 25% of babies are aborted each year. "

The point you need to make is that even with abortion there are more births than without abortion. In fact with laws in force that denied abortion, the number of births decreased and with laws in force after Roe the number of births increased.

"The birthrate per 1000 has declined from previous generations."

The decrease in the birth "rate" is due to the brith control pill. And the increase in births occured after Roe. before Roe, both rate and number of births was decreasing. The common sense answer is that Roe saved life and pro lifers caused a decrease in births.

Thanks for opening the door for me Cowan. This is what Cowan is afraid of: http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com These laws show that pro lifers are murdering born babies to save fetuses.

“Have you found a recognized scientific body to endorse your assertions Russell?”

Cowan has not found one scientific body that rejects the laws. In fact his request was rejected when he requested a review.

“ No? Get back to us when you do.”

There is no need to get back to you. The fact is that you cannot come up with even one scientific source that agrees with you. The laws I present are the most reviewed laws to have ever been placed before the public. Over 41 thousand likes on Facebook and over 23 million people having access far outpaces any other review in history. Not one scientific journal has ever had that kind of access. Every scientist in the world has a chance to judge the work presented on my site. Not one scientist has chosen to publish an opposing opinion.

Old DNA and new DNA can be altered by natural processes and outside forces. All new DNA is created by old DNA. The Theory of New Life states: The process of conception is controlled by the old DNA that creates the new DNA. The new life is mitigated by the old DNA. The information needed to build new DNA is contained in the old DNA. The new Life can only contain the possibilities that are provided with the old DNA’s data as modified by natural processes and outside forces.

The Law of Life: It is impossible at conception to tell if a human life will survive through birth.

The Theory of Life states: It is impossible to know if a fetus will live until the DNA of life has run its entire code. For example if a programmer writes a code and runs the code, he cannot know if there is an error in the code until it has run in its entirety. Therefore one cannot know if a zygote will in fact be a baby until it is born. If one treats a zygote as a baby and gives it the rights of a human, the best they can possibly hope for is that they will be right somewhere between 30 percent and 99.5 percent of the time that it will be born.

The Law of Conception: Most conceptions end in abortion.

The Theory of Conception states: Abortion is a natural and expected consequence of sex. It therefore cannot be true that there is "life at conception". In fact it is usually death at conception. Any attempt to enforce "life at conception" will therefore waste resources that could be used to save life.

The Law of Charity: There are more people dying than can be saved.

Simply put there are as many as 57 million people that die each year. The Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or a born person. Every choice to save one life simply allows another to die. Pro lifers simply choose to save fetuses and let children die. There is no "net" gain in life saved due to the fact that these laws limit when life can actually be saved. The greatest error of pro lifers is that by attempting to save a fetus, they are causing the death of more people than one would expect. For example if a person uses their charity to save a born child then the odds are, the child will live. But if they attempt to save a fetus the odds of saving the fetus at conception is only 30 percent and at birth only 99.5 percent. Most of the time, pro lifers waste resources that could be used to save life.

The Law of Preclusion: In the first nine months of a pregnancy a forced pregnancy precludes another pregnancy.

The Theory of Preclusion states: If a woman is forced to give birth to one child then for a period of nine months she cannot intentionally become pregnant with another child. As a single example, if a woman is raped a few days before her wedding and becomes pregnant, then for nine months she cannot become pregnant with her husband’s child. If her intent was to have her husband's child after marriage then that becomes impossible. If she aborts the child of the rapist and immediately becomes pregnant by her husband, then there is no loss of life. If she keeps the rapist's fetus there is no gain in life because she is denying life to her husband's child. Now if the woman and husband can only afford one child, then they are stuck their entire life with the child of the rapist and denied the child of the husband. No life is saved by saving the rapist's fetus and in fact the life of the wanted child is lost.

The Law of Consent: Any consent to a sexual act by a woman that could lead to pregnancy is implied consent to abortion.

It is generally accepted that as many as 50 to 75 percent of conceptions end in natural abortion. The Theory of Consent states: If a person intentionally has sex they are intentionally consenting to abort as many as 75 percent of their conceptions. A person can't have sex without actual implied consent to abortion.

The laws lead to important insight into abortion. For example it is clear that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype it is impossible to tell if the product of conception is alive or human. In fact over 70 percent of conceptions die in the first trimester and 15 percent of those that live die later. Of those that die, 60 percent do not have enough human DNA to live as a human and are therefore not human. In the end 42 percent of conceptions are not human and only 30 percent produce a living human that lives to birth. What this means is that it is impossible to tell if there is life or even human DNA at conception. Therefore one cannot claim "life at conception". The laws also lead to the fact that more people are dying than can be saved. For that reason pro lifers must choose to save either a born person or a fetus, they cannot save all of both. And if pro lifers choose to save fetuses, then born people will die. The result is that pro lifers do not save life, they simply kill born people to save fetuses.

Perhaps the greatest problem for pro lifers is found in the graph that is my avatar. That graph is detailed in the photo section of my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/naturalabortionlaw The yellow part of the graph shows the number of births before Roe during the "pro life period" and those births are decreasing. The green side shows the number of births after Roe and those are increasing.The purpose of the graph is to show that pro lifers are lying when they say that there have been 55 million murders after Roe became law. The fact is that before Roe there were fewer births than after Roe. Therefore, if there was a loss of life, it occurred before Roe. Why? Most likely because with birth control women refused to have babies because of the oppression of the anti birth control and anti abortion movements. The loss of life clearly occurred before Roe, not after.

Matthew is simply upset because the scientific laws that control the impact of abortion show that he has a choice, he may choose to save born babies or he may let them die to save fetuses that he cannot prove are alive, will live to birth or are human.

Texas needs to oust the combative and confrontational TEA-types and countering pseudo Republicans from office and take out Texas back from extremist! Let's all vote for Joaquin Castro for the Senate. A.B.C. = Anybody But Cruz!

NO, not upset but dismayed at the ignorance of the scientific process that has been exhibited by Russell. IT is clear that Russell can not tell the difference between what is actually a law, his assertions or a fart in the wind..

I is simply amazing to see the Pro-Life comments that suggest that if women would "close their legs" somehow the problem of abortions would be solved. What a absurd and inflammatory thing to say. And it is simply NOT true. So, before you lecture others on THEIR morality, I would suggest you focus on your own sins before lamenting the sins of women. While I believe there is a better way than abortion, it is beyond arrogance for you to judge others that face this choice.

As to Turning Texas Blue, if republicans like you keep making misogynist, bigoted, and hate filled comments attacking women, and we will see just how quick this state is turning away from one party rule. See you at the Polls!